R v Corbett (Supplementary Judgment NSWCCA 137) [2002] NSWCCA 402

R v Corbett (Supplementary Judgment NSWCCA 137) [2002] NSWCCA 402

Ground 2 was not established because evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by conduct had been admitted, fabrication or reconstruction had been suggested, and leave had been granted under s 108(3). No ground was shown for interfering with the trial judge's discretion, and the reversal of the order of events under s 108(3)(a) was not prejudicial and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Supplementary Judgment Addressing Ground 2 After Judgment on 19 April 2002
Outcome
Ground 2 of the appeal was rejected; the orders previously pronounced were confirmed.
Legal Topics
['credibility' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'prior Consistent Statement' 'leave of the Court' 'section 108(3) Evidence Act']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['credibility' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'prior Consistent Statement' 'leave of the Court' 'section 108(3) Evidence Act']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Supplementary Judgment Addressing Ground 2 After Judgment on 19 April 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in allowing evidence of a prior representation by the complainant to Colin Seaton to be admitted.' 'Whether the reversal of the order of events under s 108(3)(a) Evidence Act caused prejudice or a miscarriage of justice.' "Whether any ground was established for interfering with the trial judge's discretion to grant leave under s 108(3)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Ground 2 was not established because evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by conduct had been admitted, fabrication or reconstruction had been suggested, and leave had been granted under s 108(3). No ground was shown for interfering with the trial judge's discretion, and the reversal of the order of events under s 108(3)(a) was not prejudicial and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Ground 2 of the appeal was rejected; the orders previously pronounced were confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The orders pronounced by the Court on 19 April 2002 are confirmed.']